The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Strategic thinking…

The other day Chase Carey was talking to Germany’s Sport Bild about how Liberty Media plans to change the rules and economics of Formula 1, in order to attract more big players. He was talking to the Germans and so was saying that the sport wanted more German companies involved, with more manufacturers, teams and a solid German Grand Prix. This was interpreted in a fairly narrow way, the suggestion being that he wants more German influence in the sport.

In reality, it was a rather different message that he was delivering. If he had been talking to the Japanese media he would probably have said the same about Japanese manufacturers and likewise with the Americans. The bottom line is that he wants more automobile manufacturers – and it does not matter from where they come.

This is a logical strategic statement because F1 currently has only had four manufacturers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda). Back in 2008 there were six (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Honda, BMW and Toyota) and that was pretty much a normal sort of number going right back into the 1980s. Some made little impression, such as Yamaha and Peugeot, and there were always odd suppliers looking for customers, such as Judd, Hart and others. Cosworth was there too, to pick up the stragglers as required, but the last Ford win was 14 years ago.

Everyone understands the power and global market penetration of F1, but not many manufacturers want to pay the kind of money that is required to join the F1 club today – and they are quite open about it. F1 is too expensive. Thus it is safe to conclude that if one can bring down the costs to a sensible level, other manufacturers will join the fight. There is no real logic these days in building teams from scratch, as there are 10 perfectly good ones in action, at least three of which are for sale at any given moment. It would probably be wise to change the system a little and have all of these entrants being given what the Americans call “franchises”. These are basically contractual rights to own and operate a team – within an established framework. In the US these are often linked to the team’s location, but in F1 it would simply be 10 teams, contracted to work together and sharing out money in an equitable manner.

The current system is secret, complex and not really very fair. Franchises in the US are bought and sold, although the franchise-holders can vote to admit new members if they see fit to do so. European sports leagues tend to work with promotion and relegation being used to determine membership, but this is impractical in F1 because of the huge leap in budgets from Formula 2 to Formula 1. If rising teams want to move into F1, they need to find backers to fund such a move.

The current prizemoney structure is heavily weighted towards Ferrari and other big teams, but if the money was redistributed in a more equitable fashion there would be more for almost everyone – and less reason for anyone to argue. Teams would get what they deserve, based on results. History and loyalty to F1 is all well and good, but the big brands make additional money from merchandising as a result of their heritage and so to reward them just for being there is deemed by many as being unfair. If all these bonuses and benefits were removed, the teams would get around $60 million apiece for appearing at races (what is known as Column 1 money) and the prize money (known as Column 2 money) would range from $110 million for the World Champion Constructor, to $23 million for the 10th placed team. That means that every team would get at least $83 million, without requiring any sponsorship or pay-drivers. Given that a couple of teams are operating on around $100 million with decent success, the need to cap budgets would only apply to the biggest teams.

A car manufacturer might baulk at paying $200 million for an F1 programme, but if a moderately successful programme generated $120 million in guaranteed prize money, one can imagine the decision being rather easier for the auto industry executives involved. And one must add that these numbers are percentages based on the money the sport generates and with everyone working together and new revenues being generated, the numbers will definitely rise. So too will sponsorship if the sport moves away from pay-TV in markets that will not support it.

At the moment, the manufacturers who do not want to pay for F1 go elsewhere in the sport. This generally costs less – but achieves less as well. At the moment the fashionable place to be is Formula E, which costs very little, has environmental credibility and goes into urban areas. The fact that it gives little back in terms of publicity and prize money does not matter at the moment, but it will do when the costs start to rise, which they inevitably will do as manufacturers are given more freedom to design their own powertrains and chassis.

Other championships have the classic boom-bust cycle with manufacturers seeing an opportunity and entering a series. This means that either one manufacturer dominates or a number battle and raise the spending levels. Usually only one can be the winner, so the others withdraw and the championship sinks back. This is seen in series like the World Touring Car Championship and the World Rally Championship. The World Endurance Championship allows for more exotic machinery and more spending, but the only race with any real promotional value is Le Mans and even this requires advertising spending to tell the world that a company has won the event.

DTM and NASCAR have the manufacturers working together to keep the regulations tight and thus spread the winning around a little bit more. By working together they all benefit, while remaining rivals on the race tracks.

In a perfect world, the spending in F1 would be limited to make the sport attractive to car companies. Manufacturers would then enter their own teams, rather than being only engine suppliers, thus guaranteeing that they have full control over their investments and making it more interesting for the fans. If the sport generates sufficient money to make the involvement entirely positive, then everyone will gain from the experience.

There was a time 15 or so years ago when it was reckoned that it was worth an automobile manufacturer being in F1 because of the halo effect that the sport had on the image of any company involved. Some believe that it is essential for there to be independent engine suppliers to provide competitive engines for any team not backed by a manufacturer, but without cost controls they cannot be competitive. At the moment F1 engines are still wildly expensive with research into the complicated hybrid technology being useful for the industry. Industry relevance is important, but not when it creates an automobile industry arms race in the sport. Car companies will be doing this research whether they are in racing or not, so the trick is to find a formula with rules that allows them to showcase their technology, without it becoming a question of who can spend the most.

At the moment the industry is still looking to hybrids and electric cars but it must be noted that of the 94 million vehicles manufactured in 2016 only four percent of them were using hybrid or electric powertrains. This is expected to rise to about 15 percent by 2023, but it will still only be a small part of the overall market. Having said that, up to now the big manufacturers have not been investing in the new technology nor marketing such cars aggressively, so the estimates may change. It makes little sense for F1 to switch away from hybrids, but it makes a great deal of sense to restrict these in order to cut costs. If that can be done, and chassis costs can also be cut back, F1 may become more attractive. It is clear that nothing is going to happen before the rules change in 2021, although discussions about the direction that this will take are now ongoing. Liberty Media is hoping that the new package will convince more manufacturers to join the fray. In order for that to happen, the rules need to change in such a way as to give everyone an equal chance to be successful.

At the moment Renault is the biggest of the manufacturer in F1. It is now the third largest car firm in the world, following its acquisition of Mitsubishi Motors last year and the fact that GM has sold its European operations to PSA Peugeot Citroen. This means that GM will likely slip to fourth in the pecking order, behind Volkswagen (10.3 million), Toyota (10.2 million) and Renault (9.9 million). Behind these four are Hyundai (7.8 million), Ford (6.3 million), Honda (4.9 million), Fiat Chrysler (4.8 million), PSA Peugeot Citroen (which should rise to around 4.3 million with its GM sales) and Suzuki (2.8 million). Of the luxury brands Mercedes sells 2.2 million, and is in a fight with BMW (2.3 million) and VW brand Audi (1.87 million), while another VW brand that might be interested is Porsche (238,000). As a comparison, super car companies Ferrari and Lamborghini currently only make 8,000 and 3,500 cars respectively, although they have far bigger margins.

There is a pretty solid case for GM and Ford to get involved in F1 to boost their global sales, while Fiat Chrysler has talked about an entry for Alfa Romeo. BMW, Audi and Porsche are obvious candidates as well.

Share this:

Related

114 Responses

I like the idea of Franchises that the FIA or FOM would hold until sold. I think they need to form up to 20 of them with no more than 15 teams allowed at one time. The classic names of F-1 should be included in F-1 : Lotus, March, Matra, BRM, Ligier, Shadow, Arrows, Toleman, Tyrrell, Surtees, Minardi, etc… so that a new team has to buy a known franchise… “ABC team Toleman”…so that history is preserved but also the new owner has ability to name alongside.

F-1 manufacturers can enter under their own name… Porsche, BMW, Alfa, etc…

That is the marketing equivalent of guaranteeing of all that glitters turns to old tat.

You must let the presentation refresh without hindrances.

There will be ugly and the dull, as well, but never will you be bound to really not sophisticated company trade dress, from two generations meanwhile what’s fresh will always end up looking decidedly modern, once you overcame your rejection or the unfamiliar, just a age trait that I suffer from too annoying annoyingly…. it just can’t look right if some old team brand (named for a joke) is still sporting sideburns and flares. Ruin the whole show and parade, ultimately, visually. It’s too restrictive of business freedoms generally but not starting with that one now.

Before anyone wastes any more time to guess at new split models and the like (yes joj yes..) it isn’t as if you can list the litany of top economists and other unarguably unsurpassed talents, who have thrown their hands up in the air despairing nothing can fix F1, is it?

Mostly people don’t realise how much we do moan when quite happy. Like me, now:)

I’m not taking complaints to mean people desperate to change. That’s insulting among grownups who must obviously be constrained within their billion dollar sandpit, definitely checked they are of sound mind and yes, some can speak up if in trouble.

The teams on the limit of their resources never cried in last gasp it was new ways or their way was the highway, did anyone,? Anyone?

I’m suspicious of the Liberty perestroika. Its all feeling too New Labour for me, all of a sudden.

At least I am approaching the point where I’m personally actually satisfied with my own little ideal daydreaming of “my F1.”

Come to think of it I’ve been trying to figure out how to run my imaginary ideal F1 for years, and I’m not finished by far. And that is with my perfectly behaving paddock!

Hmm!

Perfect conditions….
Avid fan…
Possibly not single digits IQ…
NOT COME UP WITH BETTER IN YEARS AND YEARS…

I do agree that a more equitable money distribution is a good thing. I also believe that Ferrari should get a bit more than everyone else, but maybe only 1/4 to 1/3 of what they are given now. This is in recognition of their longevity, reputation and name recognition.

However, I do hope that the budget cap won’t be so low as to be easily met by everyone. I think you still need some room in there as a stretch for smaller teams.

I disagree with flatlander48 completely. There is absolutely no justification for any name to have a longevity payment. (they’re only the “same team” as competed in the 60s in the same way as “this” is still my grandfathers axe).

Ferrari have long gained numerous benefits in kind from the sport. The extra they get from Bernie’s legacy agreements is just obscene.

So what you are saying is that the World Class brand recognition and brand loyalty are worth nothing. Remember that outside of F1, Sauber, Haas, Toro Rosso, Force India and Williams don’t have much brand recognition. That’s half of the field. McLaren isn’t much better. $20mil to $30mil extra to Ferrari is a bargain, in my estimation. It is the only team left from those that competed in 1950. For example, Gordini has been out of F1 for over 60 years and Maserati and Alfa Romeo both for around 30 years. Clearly Ferrari is the heart and soul of F1. So, $90mil? No. $20mil to $30mil? Yes…

What is conveniently ignored in all reports of the “unfair distribution” of funds is the fact that Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren and Williams also get significant ‘historical payments’ – not just Ferrari

I doubt that in football, the teams such as Leicester (English Premiership champions two seasons ago) or Watford, for example, would attract much in the sense of ticket sales when the clubs venture abroad for friendly matches in Asia or America, for example.

Of course merchandising sales contribute to the overall funds but taking the example of Sauber, a wonderful ‘human’ team, or previously Minardi, neither had any success in decades of competition and their sponsorship acquisition or merchandising sales are not comparable to Williams, McLaren, Mercedes of Red Bull. Let alone Ferrari.

One last point, Ferrari may produce 8,000 cars annually with higher margins but even so, their annual profits show as in the 2-300 million.

In a recent post on here, werent the Mercedes profits reported in the billions? As to the fizzy drink maker, I believe in 2015 their profits weighed in at around 6billion.

It’s romantic to claim Ferrari as the shark in the Piranha pool but ultimately they’re a minnow.

Because.
“prejudice”= somebody (against somebody/something) to influence somebody so that they have an unfair or unreasonable opinion about somebody/something.
Synonym BIAS. “trying to prejudice the jury against something/somebody”.
“prejudice” to have harmful effect on somebody or something”.

Any team longevity payment is a distortion of the playing field. Does the Olympic games give Usain Bolt extra money to turn up regardless of where he finishes in the 100m?
Brand recognition is rewarded in sales and sponsorship, not by FOM.
Let Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull and Williams earn their prize money like the other half of the grid.
If there is to be money for ‘just turning up/qualifying for the race’ then let it be on the same terms for all.

What you write is clearly historically correct, but ( and it is a very big but ! )
the whole of the world’s motor racing scene is as different today from it’s
( usually comfortably ) well resourced past as it could possibly be. The initial costs of a current F1 entry, for example, is now stratospheric, and nowhere now do we see ultra-rich playboys funding the sport. ( and yes, I do know all about that fine chap who currently owns Force India ! And the new owner of Sauber )

In todays very tight funding situation a manufacturer of expensive toys for playboys should be expected to fund it’s whole F1 budget in house.
And when you look at the sheer scale of profit margins involved, paying
Ferrari slush money simply because it is Ferrari will be regarded by many
as simply obscene.

I have to agree with flatlander48. Ferrari should indeed receive the extra $100m for being Ferrari.
I also think Ferrari fans should receive preferential treatment under the new Liberty regime, possibly with exemption from the TV paywall and/or free membership of the Paddock VIP club

Hey flatlander48, obviously you have put some thought into your position and it has made me think too… 20 to 30 million may indeed be relatively small in the grand scheme, but I do think in the end it is still better for Ferrari to not have any special payment.

The optics are terrible IMO. If Ferrari wins, one might say “well, they get extra money so they’d better win…”, conversely if they don’t win, one might say: “Geez… they get extra money and STILL don’t win, what a crappy team!”

Now I realize that both of those positions are simplistic and that the aforementioned 20 to 30 million is perhaps not such a difference maker, but many won’t bother (or want) to sort through the nuance. The “special payment” in any amount distorts the sport and, like more typical economic subsidies, is sub-optimal in the long run. Ferrari has more to gain from a more vibrant and healthier F1.

The payment to Ferrari to me represents an acknowledgement of the value of their brand penetration. MANY people have no idea what Formula 1 is, but they recognize Ferrari and the Prancing Horse. No one else has that kind of reach and exclusivity. To say that branding and recognition have no value is dangerous. This is not to say that Mercedes, Honda, Renault and Red Bull don’t have recognition, but you have to admit that Ferrari is playing in a different league.

Their brand recognition is an overall benefit to the sport at large. It has noting to do with on-track performance.

Formula 1 is about technology, racing and marketing. The recognition of Ferrari as a brand contributes something to the marketing portion that none of the other teams can contribute. That’s where it makes a difference.

I *wasn’t* surprised. Like a lot of supposedly green things the numbers don’t add up, but the manufacturers love it and the public get pulled in very gradually. I actually don’t like manufacturers owning F1 teams, they leave at the drop of a hat. It is the teams (Brackley, Enstone, MK) that we should cherish. I think FE choc-full of manufacturers and F1 for teams would be a good way forward.

They will leave F1 sooner or later. Every manufacturer bar one does at some point. F1 should make it so the teams have the power and are secure, and cannot be owned outright by manufacturers (bar Ferrari).

One of the points about Le Mans sports cars etc. is that it allows manufacturers to develop and showcase their own individual approach to the technology required – Toyota, Audi and Porsche have had distinctly different technical approaches (yet the races are pretty close). Surely as long as F1 forces a single technical (and extremely arcane) solution for everything from power plants to driver’s helmet designs then people are more likely to be dissuaded than persuaded?. This means in effect that whatever a company’s technical strategy it has to develop something else for F1 rather than what it sees as the best route forward in its own market

For a guy who knows so much of the history of the sport I wonder why you’re obsessed with manufacturers being in the sport.

When they come they come to use the sport, then they go, whether they win or not. It’s a marketing decision, few care about the sport.

I’d much rather see 10 Williams, Mclarens or Force Indias get 100 mil a season than a pointless Renault or a worse Mercedes that literally as soon as they feel they’re at the top of the bell curve will be gone. Without F1 teams like Williams etc… have no reason to exist.

There is of course a place for manufacturers in the engine department but the best of F1 has come from independent chassis builders. That’s where the formula came from and where it should remain.

Interesting, because that’s the complete opposite of how I feel. I’d much rather see manufacturers — even if they come and go — than independents. At least the manufacturers’ presence is meant to be performance/results based. I’m not sure why Williams or Force India are there anymore, other than vanity or to make money.

As recently as Baku, either Williams or Force India might have won, with a bit more driver patience/skill. I admit it would have been a lucky win of attrition, but lucky wins of attrition are all that are keeping the Red Bull team in business these days. Williams in particular are probably telling themselves this is a (very long) blip and that they will still be around for the day when a sweet PU deal or massive rule overhaul means they can genuinely fight for multiple wins again, even if it is just another 2004 instead of another 1992.

@Gabe – I’m really perplexed how anyone with F1 in their veins could say they are not sure why Williams are there anymore. If there is one F1 team that exists to go racing and has always been the very embodiment of that spirit, it is Team Willy. That is why they are so widely loved and it shouldn’t really need spelling out. Frank Williams has spent nearly half a century in the sport and in that time he has seen awful lows – much lower than anything he experiences today (apart from his ongoing physical disabilities, his surmounting of which is in itself testament to a most extraordinary man) – and incredible highs, at a level and a number of which most of the big works teams which have come and gone in that time could only dream. Of course, he would prefer the highs to the lows – or a good performance/results based return, if you prefer to be more soul-less about it – but through it all, he has been there in the paddock like the letters in a stick of rock, the embodiment of Kipling’s famous lines about meeting with triumph and disaster and treating those two imposters just the same. To dismiss this from afar as vanity is vain in itself, I regret to say. It is not vanity, it is called being a racer. Carry on looking in the big automotive boardrooms for that spirit, if you prefer to look there, but no wonder you cannot see it when it is right before your eyes.

Why are Williams and Force India in F1? Because they are racers…as were McLaren and Manor and Haas. I’d much prefer a grid full of teams that are in F1 to race rather than to use it as a marketing exercise and leave it scarred when they choose to leave.

+1 – would rather see 13+ independent teams (preferably with pre-qualifying) that live and breathe for F1. Given the choice would swap Renault and Mercedes for the likes of Tyrell, Brabham, (the original) Team Lotus and even Minardi. Those days are gone however even the likes of Manor and Super Aguri brought something special to F1 that no manufacturer could – raw unadulterated enthusiasm and passion.

Manufacturers bring a certain level of cache and commercial appeal which in turn draws in a broader cross-section of followers than purely ardent F1 fans. This in turn means the specialist press would have a larger potential readership to appeal to. While I can understand that as a potential rationale (and it is by no means certain that’s the driver for this article), I’d still prefer an ambience closer to what transpired in the 80s and what MotoGP has cultivated today – less sanitized with the competitors given the license to speak their minds but also maintaining greater respect for one another.

There has to be manufacturer involvement at the top level of the sport but not necessarily all as factory entries, for me that is the domain of closed wheel racing’ specifically Touring cars and rallying.

A franchise system might be a way to ensure more equitable distribution of moneies but what I would like is a 3 way split between manufacturer teams, independent teams with works spec engines and independent teams with customer engines. Then there is something viable for all budget levels.

I would also like to see teams able to run 3 cars on ocassion. Not necessarily all season, but at key venues where there is room for a bigger grid…. That might allow local marketing possibiities and young drivers getting a chance.

Not quite. Mercedes and Auto Union applied their resources to wipe out Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Bugatti and Talbot-Lago in pre-war GP racing. They almost destroyed GP racing.

Post-war, when GP racing became F1, Alfa Romeo were dominant but Maserati and Talbot-Lago were hanging on at the game. The upstarts at Ferrari had different ideas — a 4.5 litre unsupercharged F1 car which might beat the Alfas by stopping less of fuel. Ironically, Ferrari were the team who pushed Alfa Romeo out of 1950s F1.

The garagiste constructors of the late 1950s relied on Coventry-Climax engines. Whenever people discuss the Cosworth DFV’s impact, they forget to mention Mike Hewland who made gearboxes for everything and everyone. If there had been an equivalent gearbox manufacturer in the 1950s, there might have been more garage constructors.

Before the Cosworth DFV it was Coventry Climax in the 2.5L and 1.5L formulas…

“The word garagiste refers to the great Enzo Ferrari’s hatred of the multitude of talented, but small, Formula 1 teams that were emerging out of Britain in the late 50’s and early 60’s. The term meant that the likes of Lotus, Cooper and the reborn BRM were basically garage workers (grease monkeys in less formal parlance) compared to the engineering might of his Scuderia Ferrari. These teams didn’t produce their own engines or other ancillaries (aside from BRM), specialising mostly in light, nimble chassis.”

Liberty selling franchises just sounds like they own the sport. When of course the FIA own it.
Franchises could be sold or rented out by the FIA as a useful source of income. While Liberty or FOM could still control the revenue flow from media rights and handle commercialisation and prize money, much as they are now,
But I am very much against the FIA saying “Here you take it over and run it all” and then saying “We have no power!” Like they did before when they let Bernie cut them off a the ankles.

They own something for sure but if Mecedes and Renault were to decamp to Formula E and WEC they might not own something worth as much as they thought if other series were to get more attention and be more accessible especially if on FTA TV! Pesonally I see the Mercedes out of DTM scenario as a wake up call to those who think that F1 is the bees knees for car Manufacturers. For Mercedes at least the idea of engines based on off the shelf turbos and battery packs will be a lot less attrative than developing their own to be better than their opponents. They may decide they have made their point and might decide to go and they will be able to run their own technology in FE. Ferrari will be in a tricky spot too since they won’t like it either and they might also go to FE and or WEC. Ferrari out of F1? I think it could actually happen if they hate the idea of running a car full of bits made by those nasty garagistas!. All of this might be better for the sport in the longer term and cheaper competitive engines would give the smaller teams the incentive to continue. At present, the car makers can win most races with their occasional slip ups being pounced on by Red Bull. In future F1 might be more about Willams, Force India, Red Bull, Sauber, and any newcomers than the big car makers. If so, bring it on I say. It may even be Jean Todt’s master plan to get the geni back in the bottle!

Yes DTM is a curiously parochial tutonic extravaganza with only three manufacturers being involved but I think the interesting point, and other posters have mentioned this, it that it is highly regulated and perhaps manufacturers would prefer to move to formulae that allow more technological freedom to emphasise their R&D expertise. I have thougt for a while that DTM could break down at some point because of it’s limited focus. That would be a shame as it produces good racing. Question is, if F1 also being sufficated by tight technical restriction and will the simpler PUs be the exit point for some?

I enjoyed the pre-ITC version of the DTM where there were 190Es, M3s, Audi 200, and even a Ford Mustang at one point. The current version seems to pre-occupied with team orders (“take him out” or words to that effect being the low point) and shuffling drivers around to maximise the #1’s championship hopes. This may have changed since I last bothered to watch, but that ship has sailed.

I wish they didn’t. The FIA, to my mind, are as much net takers from F1 as the most voracious, whimsical manufacturer, the difference being the FIA are actually turkeys voting for Xmas in the way they seek to scupper the sport’s image with nonsense like the Halo. Hell, different era, different regime, but consider the utter fiasco that was the US Grand Prix with just 6 runners. Fault? Step forward FIA.

It would be great if Liberty put them in their place once and for all by making it clear who holds all the cards. No viewers tune in to enjoy what the FIA have to say – they tune in to watch heroes, drivers and teams fight it out. F1 is Liberty’s house, and as far as I’m concerned the FIA are merely guests in it.

How big of a sales job will it be to convince the top teams that it’s better to share a bigger pie? What will keep some of the teams from just living off the guaranteed paycheck as participants and not trying to win?

I always wondered if a system similar to US baseball luxury tax would be worthwhile in F1. There is no specified cap on spending, but if a team spends more than X dollars then it must spend a significant tax that is dispersed to the lower teams. This may theoretically increase the competitiveness of the lower teams while acting as a method to dissuade teams from spending crazy high amounts.

I think I asked for this article in my last post so thanks it’s really good. I was really suprised about the low % hybrid car but I have checked and you’re spot on Joe. Having read the Blick ( local rag) article about quoting the Bild’s interview with Carey’s comments seem to be very German focused almost pleading for more support but agree that the country could be switched and the message would stay the same.

” So too will sponsorship if the sport moves away from pay-TV in markets that will not support it.”

Thank You, my thought also I do not pay for it in Amerika.

I believe that F-1 needs to stay in hy-breds but the tech in todays car will never see the light of day in production. There’s a new Mercedes engine going into production cars this year that the starter adds to the horsepower when needed. Why can’t ideas like that come into F-1?

Some of the manufacturers will take some convincing that the ghost of Bernie has been exorcised and LM won’t fall back on the machinations of the little man to achieve the profits they need to keep F1 solvent .

I’ve no first hand knowledge of American cars, but old Top Gear constantly described their ‘top’ cars as being agricultural, with the emphasis on engine size with innovation and quality far down the list. LM need to be careful not to turn F1 into the Humvee championship, by chasing the dollar and US audience.

I can understand why Mercedes are joining the FormulaE championship, it’s a world event that may get their ‘brand’ more recognition and gives them the opportunity to connect F1 with battery racing. DTM is basically a German tin top event that doesn’t get much interest outside of the country.

Having watched the recent FormulaE racing in New York, I have to say it was dire from start to finish. City centre racing it wasn’t. How can TV viewers get involved in a series that races down concrete channels that make it all but impossible to work out where the cars are on track. The huge number of incidents in every race are boring. Do they make the cars out of balsa wood? They appear to fall apart at the slightest touch.

Same reason they won’t race on a track where other formulae have set a lap time – Formula Ford 1600 cars are quicker than FE, and they don’t have to change to a different car in the middle of the race either.

Daft comments!
FE is only three seasons old and electric technology is improving rapidly e.g. one car per driver in season 5 and increased power. It’s like comparing the cars from the third season of F1 with today’s machines. The technology improves through its application in motorsport. That’s the whole point, surely?
It’s futile to compare FE to other formats.
As an aside, Liberty Global invested in FE before it bought into F1. Consider that, plus the participation of Renault, DS, Audi, BMW, Mahindra, Jaguar, Merc and Porsche (apparently) and maybe you might see what’s staring you in the face. The writing’s on the wall my petrol-obsessed friends.
P.S. I still love F1 though!

Are FF really faster? They’re certainly more fun to watch. Good point about FE never appearing where times can be compared. The FE cars just look ponderous and slow, not nimble and fast. Watched a ‘race’ and couldn’t stay to the end.

I hope Liberty is thinking the same way as you, Joe, or at least reads what you have written here, because it is a wonderfully common-sensical and comprehensive perspective on reality and is exactly the approach necessary to begin moving the sport forward.

All due credit to BE for raising things from small-time to a big deal, but the era of meanly poking the situation for greater short term profits had to end.

If these ideas make it into practice, we may lose the intrigue that comes from secrets, mystery and rumor but we will gain a huge measure more fascination and delight from the sport.

In view of the low percentage of actual Hybrid or Electric Vehicles in the world, a case can be made for for a spec 1.6L Twin Turbo KERS powerplant to be the “spec” platform, BUT allow other powerplants, as well. This has been done before when the engine rules changed in order to allow the poorer teams more time to comply. This time, though, I would love to see the rules allow ANY normally aspirated Internal Combustion Engine configuration to a maximum effective displacement of 2.24L and utilizing the same spec KERS as the “spec” platform – for the same term as the new regs dictate for the “spec” powerplant, not just as a stopgap measure. Cap the power of these alternate powerplants to the same measure of the top “spec” powerplants using the same standard of calculation the current rules dictate. This may generate more interest from outside engine manufacturers and MAYBE Ferrari will opt for a V12 🙂 .

hi Andrew
assume that you are the renowned tester/writer ? have to slightly disagree re Ford and boring cars. The new Mustang is selling well down here in Aussie (having only recently been released) and whilst the standard Avis model (which I hired last year in LA) is not as well made as it could be – nor as powerful – it was a pretty good car especially with the top down and the Beach Boys on full volume…
cheers
Peter

There’s a storm brewing in Germany. If the article in ‘der Spiegel’ last Friday got its facts right, the survival of the entire German car-industry is at stake. Forget diesel-gate, if the accusations of forming a cartel turn out to be true, none of the German manufacturers will have any attention left for autosport (or the money for that matter) in the foreseeable future.

And that’s only Germany…

Love it or hate it, in a few years time Formula E might be all that is left!

Good point but probably a storm in a tea cup. FE will have to get seriously faster if it is going to appeal to thrill-seeking adults. It is not inconceivable to imagine FE circuits with ‘Wipeout’-style machines running on an auto-charging surface within a decade, maybe two? F1 better adapt or die – at least with the new management there is some hope.

How much is a DTM budget vs exposure? A quick google was 30 million, so I guess the logic is spend 10 on the car, 20 on the promotion and you’ve got more worldwide impact than DTM, although you don’t get the “it’s a car you can buy from your dealer the next day” factor.

Isn’t the biggest issue around pay TV where the money ends up, rather than the amount of it? So Sky paid Bernie a fortune, but as a result the teams can’t get the same value for their sponsorship as fewer people see the races on the satellite channels?

When have you heard a team boss complain about Pay TV? Never I believe! The reason is because they know that it is the best way they can generate the most income – even with the cut they have have to give to Liberty for commission.

In fact what the teams want to do is reduce the commission that Liberty takes and the smaller teams wish to see the income more evenly spread – this is the battle which will be fought!

@jimbo – Have you ever heard a team owner say he wants more Pay TV and less FTA? I’ve only remember one team boss having an opinion on F1 broadcasting, that was Adam Parr and we know what happened to him.

It’s a ‘chicken and egg’ situation because the more the teams rely on Liberty revenues (Bernie before that), as you rightly say sponsorship values decline. But not only that, and sponsors disappear entirely, as can witnessed with McLaren. Sponsors such as Martini with Williams get good value I would say.

Has the 8×3 concept finally bitten the dust? Ten teams is stifling driver development (says Felipe Nasr) when 4 seats are Red Bull. Would Max’s cost cap have worked for HRT, Manor & Caterham (as they turned out to be)?

I agree with comments about Formula E. The whole is much less than the sum of the parts. There are some great drivers who could (or have) perform at mid level or above F1, but the ‘racing’ is awful. I imagine they will eventually go through the 2000’s era of F1 phase when the manufacturers realise that someone has to be last.

Is there an argument for abandoning the MGU-H? This is the only ‘innovative’ part of the current F1 engine rules, and the one that appears to be the most troublesome. Now that the F1 engine industry has developed it, is it worth sending its development out to general industry? Or how about having build to print PU and MGU-K with only batteries and MGU-H open for development. Or, coming full circle, leave battery and MGU development to Formula E?

I thinks that MGU-K has yet to be bettered than what Toyota achieved with its Prius. For low emmission city-driving, especially with LNG powering the ICE, it is very difficult to improve upon.

MGU-H offers the best Hybrid solution for typical journeys that consist of a longish run on the Motorway, with a comparatively short dash to the office in the city-centre. The trouble is that despite several years of development in F1, it is no where near ready for production at an affordable price and decent longevity. I seriously doubt that it ever will be, so a plug-in hybrid is really the only practical low-cost option.

Leasing a smaller all-electric 2nd car for city driving is probably as practical to most households, and likely to become more so in the not too distant future, as city mayors want to be seen to be “making a difference” for the health and wellbeing of their inhabitants.

F1 just needs to concentrate on cheap power units. Watching motor races will become the antidote to the dreary journeys that people make in annodine cars day-in; day-out. Pleasing manufacturers may not be the best route to achieving that.

Once again Joe … automotive business news . All of AM’s engines across the board are manufactured by AMG including the ubiquitous V12 and in fact have been for the last couple of years or so since AM finally dropped the somewhat fragile PAG Ford V6 derived V12

The sport needs a fairer distribution of payments. The special payments have to go, and the max to min ratio for the column 2 payments needs to be around 3 to 1.
A budget cap system will not work, too complex and too many loopholes to exploit.
A better system is to simply restrict the benefit of spending extra money (performance). F1 already has similar rules, such as the minimum weight. There is no rule on how much your seat, mirror, radiator or wings must weigh, however, your total weight must not be less than a set value.
F1 could do this with the power units. Have a minimum CoG, minimum weight, 100 kg of fuel, and a maximum power curve.
You can do what ever you want provided you meet the requirements above.
Let the marketing and engineering people decide on the solution.
Renault can turn up with an in line 4, Merc a v6, Ferrari a v8 and tesla a full electric. All will have the same performance and the FIA can monitor and punish in real time.
Each team can develop as much as they want, and focus on the areas that are important to them.
New manufacturers will know what performance they need to meet to be competitive.
A customer team can buy a power unit for 15 mil, and a manufacturer can spend ten times that, however, they will both have the same performance. The manufacturer may use 2 kg less fuel during the race, however, this will only give them a small advantage.
You could also give each driver say 5 mins of an extra 100hp boost during the race to aid overtaking. They could use this whenever they wanted. It would also serve the same purpose as DRS, so it would no longer be needed.

A further extension would be to apply this principle to the aerodynamics, and have a max downforce vs speed curve. As part of this you would have some small active elements that would move to change the downforce levels. If you were close behind another car in the turbulent air, your wings would adjust to give back the downforce you were losing. If your wings were producing too much downforce, they would adjust to reduce the downforce. The FIA could have sensors on the suspension and monitor and punish in real time.
The cars would then start to look more distinct as the regulations would not need to be as tight.
All the cars would have similar levels of downforce while still being able to race. The big teams with extra money would still have an advantage as their cars would have less drag, but the advantage would be not as big as today.

Now is the perfect time to start to consider these sorts of ideas. Limiting performance rather than budget, and giving the teams more design freedom. When there is little to no benefit in spending large sums, the incentive to do so will disappear.

I’m for a franchise arrangement so long as the intention is for 12 teams of two cars. Everyone who competes should receive a pay out based on recent performance (we could call it “start money”) at each race.

How you find people to fund two new teams is a mystery to me. But I’m sure that having a guaranteed income would help.

Where does IMSA and in particular DPi rank. It’s a quasi manufacturer series as there is factory support . The old GTP era was killed through exactly what you said in the post. IMSA seem to be trying to ward this off by BOP, the P2 chassis and no full factory teams.

With Joest taking the Mazda entry and Penske coming in with Acura it certainly is getting some traction. But this could also be the thin edge of the wedge.

Like WEC, it has Daytona, Sebring and to a lesser extent Watkins Glen and Petit Le-Mans at Road Atlanta.

I have been a longtime F1 fan, but I am not optimistic about its future. I’d love to see it survive, but I increasingly feel it has had its day and there may not be a place for it in the 21st century.

While I still enjoy the spectacle, it does look arcane and out of touch, and I realize I enjoy it more for sentimental reasons than anything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no F1 at all in 2030.

“There is a pretty solid case for GM and Ford to get involved in F1 to boost their global sales, while Fiat Chrysler has talked about an entry for Alfa Romeo. BMW, Audi and Porsche are obvious candidates as well.”

There is absolutely NO case for GM or Ford getting involved w F1.
GM sold Opel because they lost billions; their biggest brand in China is Buick.
F1 wouln’t sell 100 GM cars in the US. They are also being stalked by Greenlight Capital who would crucify the CEO for “investing” in F1.

Ford just fired their CEO because he couldn’t “see the future”; their biggest seller and profit generator is the F150. Where does that fit into F1?

I was just wondering how much of a surprise the introduction of the Halo was seeing that the “shield” only got one lap by one driver. in all honesty I’d like that solution more but it seems it did not get a fair chance – Not to say it only got a test for the form.

F1 can just copy the moto GP model , teams are capped & anyone joining has to buddy up with existing team or buy them out . The engine price is capped.
Standard CPU which any team can modify but it’s open software which other teams can use if they wish .

Seems to be working 3 teams can win any weekend & satalite teams completing the podium regularly beating works teams .

More manufacturers joining .

Ferrari getting a little more money is ok as they are the headline act , golfers get appearance money to draw people to the tournament , when Valentino Rossi was injured the stands were half full & if you had a race without Ferrari same result.

Thanks for the insight, Joe. For me, at this juncture in my life, if a hybrid apparatus could boost the power of my Abarth in the 275 hp region, I’d be all for it. I see outrageous power gain, not planet saving vertue in all that hybrid hubbub. Let me reiterate, this my humble opinion…